Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Foxfyre]

Let me put it more simply.

1) When a President changes, via executive order, changes or refuses to enforce a law that Congress passed and he signed into law, is that a violation of social contract?

2) When Congress votes itself benefits that are not authorized via the Constitution, is that a violation of social contract?

3) When Congress and the President pass laws that obligate some of us to give our property and labor to others without compensation, is that a violation of social contract?

1) No it is not. It may or may not be your opinion, but neither is a truth.

2) This question assumes an ignorance of what Congress can and cannot do.

3) No. It is the power to tax you are referring to?.

1) Do you believe it was intended for the President to be a king who could make his own laws to suit himself?

2) What Congress can and cannot do is not in question here. What it was INTENDED for Congress to do and not do via social contract that is the issue.

3) And can we conclude from your response to No. 3 that you think the people agreed to a social contract that allows some authority to take whatever it wants from the people for whatever purpose? Some of us see that as a dangerous breach of social contract.

 

[Foxfyre]

The topic is not Obamacare. The topic is whether Obamacare meets the test of social contract.

I am coming from the point of view that a Presidential executive order and/or a bill passed by Congress and/or a ruling by SCOTUS may or may not meet the test of social contract. For sure, the fact that a law exists is not a good argument for something being classified social contract.

OF course any law passed by Congress, signed into law by the President (all duly elected) and ruled Constitutional by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court meets every single aspect of what would constitute a social contract. More specifically it meets any social contract we the people of the USA have.

Noted as your opinion. I just strongly disagree.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know

Well I am just arrogant to think that I read the founding documents they left for us and am right in that they would have disapproved of any dictate from the central government even suggesting how people must live their lives.

In the context of their time you may be correct, but you are assuming you know what they would think now about things and a changing world they know nothing about. You do not know how and when and why people will or do change. Jefferson and others changed their own view of things as they aged. Americans, the very people who ratified the Constitution and gave it legitimacy and power changed over time.

You cannot claim to "know" what anyone from the past would believe or think if they were living today.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know

Well I am just arrogant to think that I read the founding documents they left for us and am right in that they would have disapproved of any dictate from the central government even suggesting how people must live their lives.

And there was intent in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was clearly intended, based on those founding documents, to create a working nation and authorize the central governmen to recognize and secure our rights, and then have government back off and leave us alone to live our lives and organize ourselves into whatever sorts of societies we wished to have.

And that is the social contract implied in the U.S. Constitution.

There was only intent in the creation of the Constitution. There was intent in creating and the creation of the Bill of Rights. The documents themselves have NO intent.

Most of the above post is an opinion I've heard expressed often, but opinions do not equal truths

 

[Foxfyre]

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know

Well I am just arrogant to think that I read the founding documents they left for us and am right in that they would have disapproved of any dictate from the central government even suggesting how people must live their lives.

In the context of their time you may be correct, but you are assuming you know what they would think now about things and a changing world they know nothing about. You do not know how and when and why people will or do change. Jefferson and others changed their own view of things as they aged. Americans, the very people who ratified the Constitution and gave it legitimacy and power changed over time.

You cannot claim to "know" what anyone from the past would believe or think if they were living today.

Which is why I have not claimed to know what anyone from the past would believe or think if they were living today.

But I know what they believed and thought in their day based on what they wrote of what the believed and thought. And I know their convictions were based on concepts and pprinciples that stood the test of time for a very long time before the social contract was seriously breached beginning with Teddy Roosevelt and has mushroomed from there.

And I know now that we are losing our individual liberties and becoming more and more wards of and subjects of an increasingly authoritarian government. Those who love liberty are going to have to push back and we have to do it soon. And in my opinion, those who don't give a damn won't see any reason to do that and will probably object.

I want to re-establish social contract in the spirit that the Founders intended. And of course I think those who love big government and trust it to do the right thing will accuse me of ignorance, stupidity, extremism, etc. etc. etc. just for saying that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Huh?

The Congress, both the Senate and the House, approved everything. Your own link states this clearly. And it delves into the Slave Issue. Remember? The probable main motivation for Jefferson, The Great Llama of the Little Mountain. going back on his principles, principles he would hold everyone else to.

I don't understand what argument you are making here. I was clear that the Louisiana Purchase was done with the full consent of Congress AND the President and there was no constitutional challenge so we don't know how SCOTUS might have ruled on that.

I am discussing the principle of social contract within all that. The people did not see it as a breach of social contract as most approved of the purchase. But was it within the authority given to government via the Constitution? Technically no. The people should have voted their consent and that didn't happen. And that is what was a breach of social contract.

There is no argument that we are better off because the Congress authorized the Louisiana Purchase. But there is also a valid argument that it would give others license to do something similar.

"So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people."

this makes absolutely no sense. The Constitution has no intent. It is a legal contract. There can be argued an intent in the ratifying of the contract/Constitution, but in and of itself is has no intent in the way you are claiming.

The only social contract an elected representative of the people has is to represent what they think is the best interests of the people. From the first days of the Constitutional Convention the representatives did what they saw as their duty. They did not take polls or ask for ballot initiatives to make law. That would be popular democracy.

Give me a rationale for your statement that the Constitution 'has no intent' please.

I will, after you
Give me the name(s) of your segment of society that has called for the destruction of the social contract.

I asked first and on more than one occasion

I already did. Did you miss that? I am not interested in sidetracking the discussion of whether this specific group or that specific group are doing whatever. I am interested in the thread topic and will rather insist that we stay focused on that.

You are the one who mentioned certain segments of society calling for the destruction of the social contract. that IS part of the discussion. You brought it up too. You. I simply asked a question at first and you went on about governments. Then you said you were not blaming governments and I asked who these unnamed segments of society calling for the destruction of the social contract are.

Are you assuming you have the right to dictate content because it sure seems that way. This is on topic as it is about the 'social contract' and it was YOU who brought up unnamed segments deciding to destroy the social contract of personal gain or something.

You can ignore the question, but DO NOT lecture me again. You are not staff. Do not reply, fine, but you are NOT in charge

I meant DO NOT SCOLD ME. not lecture me

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

Other than Obamacare, you have strayed into areas of constitutional law, administrative law, and more. YOur post here is all over the map and for practical argument far to generalized. Your post in general is a view of liking nothing about modern American society and government

You offer a very incorrect opinion about what my post is especially in areas of modern American society and government. The topic however is not constitutional law, administrative law, or any rules or regs associated with those.

The topic is whether the law does or does not meet the requirements of social contract and what we should do about it, if anything, when it does not.

What requirements of what social contract? An abstract one or one you can point to?

The requirements implied via social contract. Any social contract. Or if you want a specific one see my Post #171.

I replied to that post

 

[Foxfyre]

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know

Well I am just arrogant to think that I read the founding documents they left for us and am right in that they would have disapproved of any dictate from the central government even suggesting how people must live their lives.

And there was intent in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was clearly intended, based on those founding documents, to create a working nation and authorize the central governmen to recognize and secure our rights, and then have government back off and leave us alone to live our lives and organize ourselves into whatever sorts of societies we wished to have.

And that is the social contract implied in the U.S. Constitution.

There was only intent in the creation of the Constitution. There was intent in creating and the creation of the Bill of Rights. The documents themselves have NO intent.

Most of the above post is an opinion I've heard expressed often, but opinions do not equal truths

Speaking of splitting hairs. "Intent: intention or purpose." If a document has no intention or purpose there no reason for the document. If there is no 'intent' of the Constitution then there is no 'intent of the law.' And both legal and standard dictionaries would have a lot of quarrel with that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Given how many Supreme Court decisions are split 5 to 4 certainly raises the question with me how much of the law or decisions it reviews are within the scope of intended social contract.

The people had absolutely no say of any kind in all that. Had it been put to a public vote, it almost certainly would have crashed and burned.

actually, the history of the Court contradicts your premise. The Court early on under Chief Justice Marshall had agreed to vote in unanimity in order to keep above the kind of reproach you are engaging in. There were most likely always splits that just were kept behind the closed doors in order to keep the republic fro tearing apart.

Arguments that foster distrust and division contribute to tearing the republic apart even when they can be hidden behind the facade intent and unity

SCOTUS is no more infallible than are any other humans. This is evident in the many SCOTUS rulings that would be considered unconscionable in today's society and culture.

So the issue is not SCOTUS but whether the law, ruled on or not by SCOTUS, meets the test for social contract.

I don't buy your premise of what constitutes the social contract. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. Or are we a nation of social contracts?

What part of the explanation in the OP do you not understand?

Are you playing games with me?

Definition: Social Contract:

1. The process or system by which society organizes itself for the mutual benefit of all. This can be binding on all or informally understood.

2. An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

a) Is Social Contract as defined above a valid concept?
b) If so, is the U.S. Constitution social contract? State and local governments?
c) If so, has the spirit and intent of social contract been preserved in current times?
d) Do you agree with Locke that laws and policies that violate social contract invalidates the law and the government that imposes them? That social contract should be the single most guiding principle in what government and laws should be?
And who should get to decide that?
​

your definition of a social contract: 1) This is generally accepted 2) This is your own personal contract you wish to discuss or the US Constitution? The US Constitution is not a social contract, it is a

a) any contract agreed to by all parties is valid.
b) by your own definition (2) or the accepted definition (1)?
this makes no sense


a primer on what a constitution is is needed
Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think some are arguing something other than social contract here. Let's review the OP once again, what the topic is, and let's focus on that okay?

I respectfully suggest it is you who are misconstruing how any social contract binds people and/or their government

You'll have to offer something more than simply saying 'I'm misconstruing' before you will convince me that I do not understand how social contract binds people and/or their government.

It appears you are arguing something other than a social contract. It appears you are speaking about the US Constitution as a social contract. It comes out convoluted

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't understand what argument you are making here. I was clear that the Louisiana Purchase was done with the full consent of Congress AND the President and there was no constitutional challenge so we don't know how SCOTUS might have ruled on that.

I am discussing the principle of social contract within all that. The people did not see it as a breach of social contract as most approved of the purchase. But was it within the authority given to government via the Constitution? Technically no. The people should have voted their consent and that didn't happen. And that is what was a breach of social contract.

There is no argument that we are better off because the Congress authorized the Louisiana Purchase. But there is also a valid argument that it would give others license to do something similar.

"So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people."

this makes absolutely no sense. The Constitution has no intent. It is a legal contract. There can be argued an intent in the ratifying of the contract/Constitution, but in and of itself is has no intent in the way you are claiming.

The only social contract an elected representative of the people has is to represent what they think is the best interests of the people. From the first days of the Constitutional Convention the representatives did what they saw as their duty. They did not take polls or ask for ballot initiatives to make law. That would be popular democracy.

Give me a rationale for your statement that the Constitution 'has no intent' please.

I will, after you
Give me the name(s) of your segment of society that has called for the destruction of the social contract.

I asked first and on more than one occasion

I already did. Did you miss that? I am not interested in sidetracking the discussion of whether this specific group or that specific group are doing whatever. I am interested in the thread topic and will rather insist that we stay focused on that.

You are the one who mentioned certain segments of society calling for the destruction of the social contract. that IS part of the discussion. You brought it up too. You. I simply asked a question at first and you went on about governments. Then you said you were not blaming governments and I asked who these unnamed segments of society calling for the destruction of the social contract are.

Are you assuming you have the right to dictate content because it sure seems that way. This is on topic as it is about the 'social contract' and it was YOU who brought up unnamed segments deciding to destroy the social contract of personal gain or something.

You can ignore the question, but DO NOT lecture me again. You are not staff. Do not reply, fine, but you are NOT in charge

I meant DO NOT SCOLD ME. not lecture me

If you consider my request to stay on topic as scolding or lecturing you, well I'm sorry. But I will continue to do that whether or not that is offensive to somebody.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know

Well I am just arrogant to think that I read the founding documents they left for us and am right in that they would have disapproved of any dictate from the central government even suggesting how people must live their lives.

And there was intent in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was clearly intended, based on those founding documents, to create a working nation and authorize the central governmen to recognize and secure our rights, and then have government back off and leave us alone to live our lives and organize ourselves into whatever sorts of societies we wished to have.

And that is the social contract implied in the U.S. Constitution.

There was only intent in the creation of the Constitution. There was intent in creating and the creation of the Bill of Rights. The documents themselves have NO intent.

Most of the above post is an opinion I've heard expressed often, but opinions do not equal truths

Speaking of splitting hairs. "Intent: intention or purpose." If a document has no intention or purpose there no reason for the document. If there is no 'intent' of the Constitution then there is no 'intent of the law.' And both legal and standard dictionaries would have a lot of quarrel with that.

Intent of versus intent in. You keep appealing to a hidden intent within the documents. The intent OF the documents is as clear as a preamble. The intent was to form a government. I'll even go with Wikipedia on this one:

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.
​

The purpose of a constitution is not what is within the constitution: the text, the content. It is the why of it all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Given how many Supreme Court decisions are split 5 to 4 certainly raises the question with me how much of the law or decisions it reviews are within the scope of intended social contract.

The people had absolutely no say of any kind in all that. Had it been put to a public vote, it almost certainly would have crashed and burned.

actually, the history of the Court contradicts your premise. The Court early on under Chief Justice Marshall had agreed to vote in unanimity in order to keep above the kind of reproach you are engaging in. There were most likely always splits that just were kept behind the closed doors in order to keep the republic fro tearing apart.

Arguments that foster distrust and division contribute to tearing the republic apart even when they can be hidden behind the facade intent and unity

SCOTUS is no more infallible than are any other humans. This is evident in the many SCOTUS rulings that would be considered unconscionable in today's society and culture.

So the issue is not SCOTUS but whether the law, ruled on or not by SCOTUS, meets the test for social contract.

I don't buy your premise of what constitutes the social contract. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. Or are we a nation of social contracts?

What part of the explanation in the OP do you not understand?

Are you playing games with me?

Definition: Social Contract:

1. The process or system by which society organizes itself for the mutual benefit of all. This can be binding on all or informally understood.

2. An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

a) Is Social Contract as defined above a valid concept?
b) If so, is the U.S. Constitution social contract? State and local governments?
c) If so, has the spirit and intent of social contract been preserved in current times?
d) Do you agree with Locke that laws and policies that violate social contract invalidates the law and the government that imposes them? That social contract should be the single most guiding principle in what government and laws should be?
And who should get to decide that?
​

your definition of a social contract: 1) This is generally accepted 2) This is your own personal contract you wish to discuss or the US Constitution? The US Constitution is not a social contract, it is a

a) any contract agreed to by all parties is valid.
b) by your own definition (2) or the accepted definition (1)?
this makes no sense


a primer on what a constitution is is needed
Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I don't know what to make of your post. To me the OP is quite clear and quite specific including Rule #3 in which I give myself the authority to specify what definition(s) we will use.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Let me put it more simply.

1) When a President changes, via executive order, changes or refuses to enforce a law that Congress passed and he signed into law, is that a violation of social contract?

2) When Congress votes itself benefits that are not authorized via the Constitution, is that a violation of social contract?

3) When Congress and the President pass laws that obligate some of us to give our property and labor to others without compensation, is that a violation of social contract?

1) No it is not. It may or may not be your opinion, but neither is a truth.

2) This question assumes an ignorance of what Congress can and cannot do.

3) No. It is the power to tax you are referring to?.

1) Do you believe it was intended for the President to be a king who could make his own laws to suit himself?

2) What Congress can and cannot do is not in question here. What it was INTENDED for Congress to do and not do via social contract that is the issue.

3) And can we conclude from your response to No. 3 that you think the people agreed to a social contract that allows some authority to take whatever it wants from the people for whatever purpose? Some of us see that as a dangerous breach of social contract.

The president thinks himself a King who is making his own laws to suit himself? Is this the purpose of this thread?

There you go again. What was intended for the Congress has changed over time with amendments and precedents. Even the founders you so admire (Jefferson) stated no generation should have to live under the intentions of any previous one. The US Constitution is a legal document, not a social contract in the sense you keep trying to twist it. A socilal contract is society agreeing to abide by their laws. It is NOT the laws themselves.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

3) And can we conclude from your response to No. 3 that you think the people agreed to a social contract that allows some authority to take whatever it wants from the people for whatever purpose? Some of us see that as a dangerous breach of social contract.

The US Constitution is NOT a social contract in the way you are framing it
.

"A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are written down in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution."
​

Our social contract is one where we agree to abide by our laws.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The topic is not Obamacare. The topic is whether Obamacare meets the test of social contract.

I am coming from the point of view that a Presidential executive order and/or a bill passed by Congress and/or a ruling by SCOTUS may or may not meet the test of social contract. For sure, the fact that a law exists is not a good argument for something being classified social contract.

OF course any law passed by Congress, signed into law by the President (all duly elected) and ruled Constitutional by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court meets every single aspect of what would constitute a social contract. More specifically it meets any social contract we the people of the USA have.

Noted as your opinion. I just strongly disagree.

That is NOT an opinion. It is a factual truth

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know

Well I am just arrogant to think that I read the founding documents they left for us and am right in that they would have disapproved of any dictate from the central government even suggesting how people must live their lives.

In the context of their time you may be correct, but you are assuming you know what they would think now about things and a changing world they know nothing about. You do not know how and when and why people will or do change. Jefferson and others changed their own view of things as they aged. Americans, the very people who ratified the Constitution and gave it legitimacy and power changed over time.

You cannot claim to "know" what anyone from the past would believe or think if they were living today.

Which is why I have not claimed to know what anyone from the past would believe or think if they were living today.

But I know what they believed and thought in their day based on what they wrote of what the believed and thought. And I know their convictions were based on concepts and pprinciples that stood the test of time for a very long time before the social contract was seriously breached beginning with Teddy Roosevelt and has mushroomed from there.

And I know now that we are losing our individual liberties and becoming more and more wards of and subjects of an increasingly authoritarian government. Those who love liberty are going to have to push back and we have to do it soon. And in my opinion, those who don't give a damn won't see any reason to do that and will probably object.

I want to re-establish social contract in the spirit that the Founders intended. And of course I think those who love big government and trust it to do the right thing will accuse me of ignorance, stupidity, extremism, etc. etc. etc. just for saying that.

Listening to the claims of you and others through the years I have to wonder just what liberties we had and how many of them we had. Because...

if you people are correct the number of liberties must have been innumerable to count and the ones lost must be in the thousands.

We are not wards or subjects, we get to vote, we get to amend all the constitutions in the land. While that may be difficult it is NOT the fault of the system.

The framers did not trust the passions of people so they deliberately made it difficult to do what you want to do. You see the framers saw you coming. Not you personally, but your passions and arguments. They made it so that YOU would have to convince others of the virtue of your claims minus the passion of your attacks.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people."

this makes absolutely no sense. The Constitution has no intent. It is a legal contract. There can be argued an intent in the ratifying of the contract/Constitution, but in and of itself is has no intent in the way you are claiming.

The only social contract an elected representative of the people has is to represent what they think is the best interests of the people. From the first days of the Constitutional Convention the representatives did what they saw as their duty. They did not take polls or ask for ballot initiatives to make law. That would be popular democracy.

Give me a rationale for your statement that the Constitution 'has no intent' please.

I will, after you
Give me the name(s) of your segment of society that has called for the destruction of the social contract.

I asked first and on more than one occasion

I already did. Did you miss that? I am not interested in sidetracking the discussion of whether this specific group or that specific group are doing whatever. I am interested in the thread topic and will rather insist that we stay focused on that.

You are the one who mentioned certain segments of society calling for the destruction of the social contract. that IS part of the discussion. You brought it up too. You. I simply asked a question at first and you went on about governments. Then you said you were not blaming governments and I asked who these unnamed segments of society calling for the destruction of the social contract are.

Are you assuming you have the right to dictate content because it sure seems that way. This is on topic as it is about the 'social contract' and it was YOU who brought up unnamed segments deciding to destroy the social contract of personal gain or something.

You can ignore the question, but DO NOT lecture me again. You are not staff. Do not reply, fine, but you are NOT in charge

I meant DO NOT SCOLD ME. not lecture me

If you consider my request to stay on topic as scolding or lecturing you, well I'm sorry. But I will continue to do that whether or not that is offensive to somebody.

I apologize for my part.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

actually, the history of the Court contradicts your premise. The Court early on under Chief Justice Marshall had agreed to vote in unanimity in order to keep above the kind of reproach you are engaging in. There were most likely always splits that just were kept behind the closed doors in order to keep the republic fro tearing apart.

Arguments that foster distrust and division contribute to tearing the republic apart even when they can be hidden behind the facade intent and unity

SCOTUS is no more infallible than are any other humans. This is evident in the many SCOTUS rulings that would be considered unconscionable in today's society and culture.

So the issue is not SCOTUS but whether the law, ruled on or not by SCOTUS, meets the test for social contract.

I don't buy your premise of what constitutes the social contract. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. Or are we a nation of social contracts?

What part of the explanation in the OP do you not understand?

Are you playing games with me?

Definition: Social Contract:

1. The process or system by which society organizes itself for the mutual benefit of all. This can be binding on all or informally understood.

2. An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

a) Is Social Contract as defined above a valid concept?
b) If so, is the U.S. Constitution social contract? State and local governments?
c) If so, has the spirit and intent of social contract been preserved in current times?
d) Do you agree with Locke that laws and policies that violate social contract invalidates the law and the government that imposes them? That social contract should be the single most guiding principle in what government and laws should be?
And who should get to decide that?
​

your definition of a social contract: 1) This is generally accepted 2) This is your own personal contract you wish to discuss or the US Constitution? The US Constitution is not a social contract, it is a

a) any contract agreed to by all parties is valid.
b) by your own definition (2) or the accepted definition (1)?
this makes no sense


a primer on what a constitution is is needed
Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I don't know what to make of your post. To me the OP is quite clear and quite specific including Rule #3 in which I give myself the authority to specify what definition(s) we will use.

your definitions: Definition: Social Contract:

1. The process or system by which society organizes itself for the mutual benefit of all. This can be binding on all or informally understood.

2. An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.​

number 2 is not a definition of a social contract as much as it is a view of the US Constitution. Why did you not say this is about the US Constitution?

 

[Foxfyre]

SCOTUS is no more infallible than are any other humans. This is evident in the many SCOTUS rulings that would be considered unconscionable in today's society and culture.

So the issue is not SCOTUS but whether the law, ruled on or not by SCOTUS, meets the test for social contract.

I don't buy your premise of what constitutes the social contract. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. Or are we a nation of social contracts?

What part of the explanation in the OP do you not understand?

Are you playing games with me?

Definition: Social Contract:

1. The process or system by which society organizes itself for the mutual benefit of all. This can be binding on all or informally understood.

2. An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

a) Is Social Contract as defined above a valid concept?
b) If so, is the U.S. Constitution social contract? State and local governments?
c) If so, has the spirit and intent of social contract been preserved in current times?
d) Do you agree with Locke that laws and policies that violate social contract invalidates the law and the government that imposes them? That social contract should be the single most guiding principle in what government and laws should be?
And who should get to decide that?
​

your definition of a social contract: 1) This is generally accepted 2) This is your own personal contract you wish to discuss or the US Constitution? The US Constitution is not a social contract, it is a

a) any contract agreed to by all parties is valid.
b) by your own definition (2) or the accepted definition (1)?
this makes no sense


a primer on what a constitution is is needed
Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I don't know what to make of your post. To me the OP is quite clear and quite specific including Rule #3 in which I give myself the authority to specify what definition(s) we will use.

your definitions: Definition: Social Contract:

1. The process or system by which society organizes itself for the mutual benefit of all. This can be binding on all or informally understood.

2. An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.​

number 2 is not a definition of a social contract as much as it is a view of the US Constitution. Why did you not say this is about the US Constitution?

The OP does discuss the Constitution but the Constitution is not the only social contract that would be defined in that way. A Homeowner's Association agreement, for instance, is the same sort of social contract.